NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

I hope he wins the nomination. It'll strenghten the cause of third party viability. :)

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point..what do you mean "at one point"?

He is currently leading the Iowa polls. He has 6 points over the the Mormon guy.

Poll: Obama, Huckabee leading rivals

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent Tue Jan 1, 5:22 AM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa - Presidential contenders rang in the 2008 election year with near-constant campaigning on Monday as a poll showed Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee leading their rivals with three days remaining before the Iowa caucuses.

Anonymous phone calls and a negative campaign commercial that vanished into thin air also spiced the race, and not even New Year's Eve was off-limits to campaign oratory.

Among Republicans, Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, had the backing of 32 percent of those surveyed, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had 26 percent.

Romney overtook him for a day. Haven't checked back recently.

huckabee has some severe problems like his support of the "fair tax" and his lack of understanding of foreign policy. im sure there are others but they arent coming to me.

the only reason he has a chance is because the rest of the republican candidates have equally (or worse) problems especially with the type of republican who votes in primaries.

Romney overtook him for a day. Haven't checked back recently.dont worry, its ok.

this link is for the BBC Polltracker, its for the whole Country, not just Iowa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7145238.stm

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzReps600.png

I hope he wins as he will guarantee the demo or a third party.

He sounds likable but then you look into his past and you find interesting stuff.

His hard-core creationism alone will loose him many votes.....

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office?

I've been trying to start this conversation for a while and it hasn't took. The bulk of the reporting we get isn't on the candidates policies or records or proposals, but rather on how much money they raised, where they sit in the polls and how they fair in mock elections against other people. As a result I believe that decisions are made based on the horse race rather than policy. Occasionally, especially after debates, you get a murmur about policy but that quickly devolves into how each exchange tracked.

I think in this way we surrender or decision making. Take Huckabee, actually. It seems like the news was genuinely surprised that he started doing well, "Really? We've been ignoring the guy for the most part..." Despite the drum pounding of what it seems NSG is calling the "Paulbots" the only time Ron Paul can get coverage is when he does single day fundraising stunts.

I think it's a direct result of how the campaigns are reported. Focusing on policy seem trivial, since that's the way it's covered.

I hope he wins as he will guarantee the demo or a third party.

He sounds likable but then you look into his past and you find interesting stuff.

His hard-core creationism alone will loose him many votes.....

Some commentator, I think Andrew Sullivan, said pretty much the same thing. Sullivan (or whoever it was) is a conservative, but is sick of the Republicans' quasi-theocracy. ("Christianists," he called them, in the same way as the ayatollahs are "Islamists.") Huckabee would hopefully show the party how this platform won't work anymore.

His hard-core creationism alone will loose him many votes........ sick of the Republicans' quasi-theocracy. ("Christianists," he called them....meh... *srugs*

what republican candidates are anti-creationism ?
what republican candidate is anti-Christianists ?

I hope he wins as he will guarantee the demo or a third party.

He sounds likable but then you look into his past and you find interesting stuff.

His hard-core creationism alone will loose him many votes.....

Actually, it would probably gain him many votes. (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html)

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office?

There are several reasons.

In the case of the Iowa caucuses, a candidate needs 15% of those present at the precinct caucus in order to be viable. Those caucusing for non-viable candidates must make a second choice.

In the case of the general election, it's lots of partisanship and a consideration of crossover and independent voters. Consider the difference between Hillary and Obama, for example. Hillary polls higher among Dems overall (although Obama is ahead by 7% according to this morning's new broadcast), but has often polled as loosing to a GOP candidate.

This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign.

Good. We don't need another Christofacist president.

However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following.

I don't know about the poles, but as ## points out he's on top of the polls at the moment.

So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

No one in Iowa will be voting for him come Thursday. Caucusing for delegates to the state conventions yes, voting in primaries no. I want him to win the GOP nomination, which, if the Dems don't nominate Hillary, would likely lock it up for Obama.

what do you mean "at one point"?

He is currently leading the Iowa polls. He has 6 points over the the Mormon guy.

Yeah, but TT said he was leading the poles not the polls. ;)

huckabee has some severe problems like his support of the "fair tax" and his lack of understanding of foreign policy. im sure there are others but they arent coming to me.

the only reason he has a chance is because the rest of the republican candidates have equally (or worse) problems especially with the type of republican who votes in primaries.

The main support for him comes from the Christofacists who took over the GOP back in the 80s.

Yeah, but TT said he was leading the poles not the polls. ;)LOL, I was wondering about that too. (Mitt Ronmey leading the Poles)

maybe Poles are all Mormons and I didn get the memo. :D

LOL, I was wondering about that too. (Mitt Ronmey leading the Poles)

maybe Poles are all Mormons and I didn get the memo. :D

This sounds like it has the potential for a very cruel Polish joke.

This sounds like it has the potential for a very cruel Polish joke.

Did you hear the one abouth the Catholic-Moromon? ;)

I hope he wins as he will guarantee the demo or a third party.

He sounds likable but then you look into his past and you find interesting stuff.

His hard-core creationism alone will loose him many votes.....

That's what we said about Dubya -- then he committed electoral fraud, thereby being awarded Florida.

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

If someone is unelectable in the general election it makes sense not to vote for them in the primary, even if they are more representative of the party's views.

I wish Democrats had such vision because John Edwards would beat the pants off of any Republican (and just happens to by my favorite candidate) and yet is unlikely to get the nomination on the Dem side.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7145238.stm



Doubly bad news. Guillani and Clinton lead in every poll listed.

Doubly bad news. Guillani and Clinton lead in every poll listed.what candidate would be good news for you?

Doubly bad news. Guillani and Clinton lead in every poll listed.

Nope, they don't. Here're the numbers from the poll I mentioned above:

THE NUMBERS — DEMOCRATS: (The Des Moines Register)

Barack Obama, 32 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 25 percent

John Edwards, 24 percent

Bill Richardson, 6 percent

___

THE NUMBERS — REPUBLICANS:

Mike Huckabee, 32 percent

Mitt Romney, 26 percent

John McCain, 13 percent

Fred Thompson, 9 percent

Ron Paul, 9 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 5 percent

___

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJbdWLJfn3nniyMdXFHw7s5tn58AD8TT7FB00

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

Ugh, I hope he doesn't win.

That's what we said about Dubya -- then he committed electoral fraud, thereby being awarded Florida.

Ahh but the two are different. Shrub pays it lip service. Huck will want it taught.....

Oh sure, he's electable if you believe in having a president who thinks that AIDS victims should be quarantined and allowed to die off. Since I don't, I doubt Huckster will be getting my vote.

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

He can lose on his own merits, and SHOULD lose on his evangelical courtship.

isn't he the same one who hates gays?

isn't he the same one who hates gays?
One?

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?Dunno. I don't like Huckabee in the first place, so I don't want him to win.

Who cares if he's electable. He's better than Giuliani.

Giuliani.Eh, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance.

One?

the Hydra has many faces :(

I hope Huckabee wins... the only presidential candidate I actually like.

I hope Huckabee wins... the only presidential candidate I actually like.

why? have you made some sort of bet with him? are you the devil with a signed contract?

Pity Wayne DuMond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_DuMond) is dead. He was a guaranteed vote. :p

Pity Wayne DuMond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_DuMond) is dead. He was a guaranteed vote. :p

DuMond received his second sexual assault conviction from a rape perpetrated in Arkansas in 1984. The victim, Ashley Stevens, was a 17-year-old cheerleader and a third cousin of then-Governor Bill Clinton.[9] Although she is much younger than Clinton, they share the same set of great-great-grandparents.
...
After Clinton was elected president, a right-wing campaign alleged that Clinton had framed an innocent man for rape.[10][11] Prominent among those pushing for DuMond to be pardoned were Guy Reel, author of Unequal Justice: Wayne DuMond, Bill Clinton, and the Politics of Rape in Arkansas; Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post; and Jay Cole, Baptist pastor for the Mission Fellowship Bible Church in Fayetteville, who had championed the cause of Wayne DuMond for more than a decade on his radio show.
This is as irritating as learning Kerry and Bush are cousins.

DuMond claimed he was attacked in his home by two men and castrated. No arrests were made in the incident. Phil Ostermann, the Arkansas State Police investigator who handled the castration case, noted in his report that Dr. Jeff Whitfield of the Elvis Presley Trauma Center in Memphis examined Dumond after the incident, and was asked by Dumond's wife whether it was possible the castration was self-inflicted. Dr. Whitfield responded that it was possible, and he had noted similar cases of self-mutilation in the past.
...
While in prison, DuMond successfully sued the St. Francis County and the local sheriff who publicly displayed DuMond's severed testicles and later flushed them down the toilet.Justice is served? o.9

As far as Huckabee's electability goes, I can see him being harmed by his overly-religious message with independent voters, especially considering the fact that there are no hot button social issues that have cross-appeal with Christian activists and non-Christian activists (i.e. gay marriage).

I can understand why people focus on his faith -- after all, he's made it a central part of his campaign, and it has been integral to his rise. However, I couldn't see myself voting against him based on his fundamentalist views. Think about it -- what harm can he really do in relation to his faith? A federal amendment banning gay marriage will never fly, stem cell research continues to be done both through private investments and with government support elsewhere in the world, and no liberal SCOTUS justice will retire during his administration. Even if one dies during his tenure, the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are slim, especially when considering that the conservative bloc has accepted that it is better to "chip away" at the ruling rather than attempt to overturn it altogether (remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey?) Really, I'd rather not hear him make chauvinistic remarks about Christianity somehow being a basis for a government founded by deists who openly spoke out against theism, but I wouldn't vote against him based on something so trivial.

Perhaps you should peruse LG's link. Not just what i highlighted.

As far as Huckabee's electability goes, I can see him being harmed by his overly-religious message with independent voters, especially considering the fact that there are no hot button social issues that have cross-appeal with Christian activists and non-Christian activists (i.e. gay marriage).

I can understand why people focus on his faith -- after all, he's made it a central part of his campaign, and it has been integral to his rise. However, I couldn't see myself voting against him based on his fundamentalist views. Think about it -- what harm can he really do in relation to his faith? A federal amendment banning gay marriage will never fly, stem cell research continues to be done both through private investments and with government support elsewhere in the world, and no liberal SCOTUS justice will retire during his administration. Even if one dies during his tenure, the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are slim, especially when considering that the conservative bloc has accepted that it is better to "chip away" at the ruling rather than attempt to overturn it altogether (remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey?) Really, I'd rather not hear him make chauvinistic remarks about Christianity somehow being a basis for a government founded by deists who openly spoke out against theism, but I wouldn't vote against him based on something so trivial.

Perhaps you should peruse LG's link. Not just what i highlighted.
Huckabee is running for President, and the last time I checked, there was no Federal Parole Board...

Huckabee is running for President, and the last time I checked, there was no Federal Parole Board...It's for consideration of the kind of discretion a guy like him would maintain if he had more power. Hence the consideration part.

dont worry, its ok.

this link is for the BBC Polltracker, its for the whole Country, not just Iowa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7145238.stm

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzReps600.png

Where is Paul in those polls? Did he drop out of the race?

First off, why do voters insist upon only voting for someone they think can win over the candidate he/she thinks will do best in office? This has been hurting Huckabee in his campaign. However, even though some say he's "unelectable," he was leading the poles in Iowa at one point, and has a fairly large following. So, NSGs, do you think Huckabee will lose, if for no other reason, because no one thinks he can win, and therefore won't vote for him?

I will not vote for him because his is too blatant about his religion, and because he is too soft. To say he is an idiot would be redundant; all politicians are.

Huckabee is a http://www.starcraft.org/grafx/info/zealot.jpg

That's what we said about Dubya -- then he committed electoral fraud, thereby being awarded Florida.

The only politically smart thing he ever did.

It's for consideration of the kind of discretion a guy like him would maintain if he had more power. Hence the consideration part.

It's an excellent example of his ability to keep fact from influencing his opinion. As well as his willingless to break the laws he swore to uphold to get his way. *nod*

It's an excellent example of his ability to keep fact from influencing his opinion. As well as his willingless to break the laws he swore to uphold to get his way. *nod*

Exactly.

It's an excellent example of his ability to keep fact from influencing his opinion. As well as his willingless to break the laws he swore to uphold to get his way. *nod*

Maybe that's true, but I would say that that has less to do with his faith and more to do with his personal decision-making processes. Hence, my reason for not counting his faith as a factor in voting or not voting for him.

Maybe that's true, but I would say that that has less to do with his faith and more to do with his personal decision-making processes. Hence, my reason for not counting his faith as a factor in voting or not voting for him.

Well clearly fact had nothing to do with his personal decision-making process, so if faith didn't then what did? A dartboard? :p

Well clearly fact had nothing to do with his personal decision-making process, so if faith didn't then what did? A dartboard? :p

He made the parole board decision based on his faith, yes. However, the decision was not made regarding any Christian principle or concept -- it was done soley based on his notions of the inmate having been converted. Sensible Christians would not have moved to release that man. Thus, it was not his Christianity that made him make that decision -- it was his own stupid deluded hopefulness.

He made the parole board decision based on his faith, yes. However, the decision was not made regarding any Christian principle or concept -- it was done soley based on his notions of the inmate having been converted. Sensible Christians would not have moved to release that man. Thus, it was not his Christianity that made him make that decision -- it was his own stupid deluded hopefulness.

I rest my case. :)

I rest my case. :)

The point that I'm trying to make is that, unless someone has clearly stated that he or she wishes to declare Jesus Christ the Commander-in-Chief or something of the like, I'm not going to vote against him or her based on his or her religious views. Huckabee loses points on the parole board issue not because of his faith, but because of his own stupidity in relation to it. The perennial social/religious issues -- abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, nativity scenes :rolleyes: -- are not a factor for me because the next President can't do much to negatively affect any of them.

I rest my case. :)

Seeing you actually debating is filling me with a sense of unspeakable dread. I couldn't for the life of me figure out exactly why, until a moment ago.

You...gods damnit you're actually good at this.

The point that I'm trying to make is that, unless someone has clearly stated that he or she wishes to declare Jesus Christ the Commander-in-Chief or something of the like, I'm not going to vote against him or her based on his or her religious views. Huckabee loses points on the parole board issue not because of his faith, but because of his own stupidity in relation to it. The perennial social/religious issues -- abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, nativity scenes :rolleyes: -- are not a factor for me because the next President can't do much to negatively affect any of them.

On the other hand, his willingness to use his position as Governor to circumvent established law in order to accomplish his own ends is a strong indicator of what he will do as President. Perhaps he can't do much to suspend civil liberties as President with a sane Congress trumping him, but he also won't to much to forward them either. The damage he can do simply by appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two is fairly extensive in the longterm. *nod*

Seeing you actually debating is filling me with a sense of unspeakable dread. I couldn't for the life of me figure out exactly why, until a moment ago.

You...gods damnit you're actually good at this.

WHile flattered, I'd like to point out that debating the positives and negatives of Mike Huckabee is like debating the positives and negatives of circumcision with napalm. :p

WHile flattered, I'd like to point out that debating the positives and negatives of Mike Huckabee is like debating the positives and negatives of circumcision with napalm. :p

Granted.

Three words that sink Huckleberry (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=print) in my eyes:

National Sales Tax (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523).

"Fair Tax" my ass. Dig this:

In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)

The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.

Anyone else see a huge surge in eBay, barter and other used-item transactions if this horseshit happens?

Three words that sink Huckleberry (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?pagewanted=print) in my eyes:

National Sales Tax (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523).

"Fair Tax" my ass. Dig this:



Anyone else see a huge surge in eBay, barter and other used-item transactions if this horseshit happens?

HEELLLLLO Black Market!

Huckabee shot himself in the foot this week, with his "No bad press" thing. Basically, he created a negative ad, then called in all the press to say that he wouldn't show it, then showed it to all the press to make sure they put it on the TV. No polls have been done since (unless one has come out this morning), but I expect that to put him down on the bottom of the list.

Huckabee loses points on the parole board issue not because of his faith, but because of his own stupidity in relation to it.
I can't really separate his faith from his stupidity. There is such a thing as thoughtful intelligent Christianity, but he subscribes to a subspecies of "Christianity" that requires stupidity to swallow.

Huckabee shot himself in the foot this week, with his "No bad press" thing. Basically, he created a negative ad, then called in all the press to say that he wouldn't show it, then showed it to all the press to make sure they put it on the TV. No polls have been done since (unless one has come out this morning), but I expect that to put him down on the bottom of the list.here are all the latest National polls in one graph.

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzReps600.png

Huckabee shot himself in the foot this week, with his "No bad press" thing. Basically, he created a negative ad, then called in all the press to say that he wouldn't show it, then showed it to all the press to make sure they put it on the TV. No polls have been done since (unless one has come out this morning), but I expect that to put him down on the bottom of the list.

Man, that's brilliant and disturbing all at once...

Huckabee shot himself in the foot this week, with his "No bad press" thing. Basically, he created a negative ad, then called in all the press to say that he wouldn't show it, then showed it to all the press to make sure they put it on the TV. No polls have been done since (unless one has come out this morning), but I expect that to put him down on the bottom of the list.

You expect too much, unfortunately.

Mike won the Iowa Caucuses, Personally I hope him and Hillary will get the nomination from their respective party. Two candidates that suck so bad, people will be scrambling for a third option!

the only republican who isn't either and obvious crook or a complete loonie is ron paul. the only democrats who arn't kissing the same you know what, as the republican loonies, are kussenich and gravel. and we all know what kind of chance any of these three stand anywhere.

so it still looks like another clintonbush. i am encouraged a little, by when cousinich threw his support to obama, appearantly his supporters actually did.

we know the corporate mafia has bought and paid for the real front runners, the only question is which is most likely not to stay bought once enaugerated.

i'll continue to support cusenich and i hope the supporters of ron paul and gravel will continue to do likewise, up ontil the nominations are final. after which, i will be very much surprised if their remains any real choice.

the dems will have nominated either hillery or obama, and the repubates, one or another of their pretty boy loonies.

and no one, including me, is going to believe the general election wasn't rigged if we end up with another white male republican (unless maybe, fat chance, its ron paul).

what if anything is going to change AFTER the election, with nearly all of their forign policy advisors being the same promoters of mass murdering civilians we've seen for the past 30 years, we will just have to see when we see.

perhapse we'll get one less disasterous domesticly at least. or one that will kill a few hundred thousand fewer then another.

yet there are other factors and trends going on besides the will of forign policy advisors too. so there may be other circuses, if not at first entirely obvious ones.

mom nature may have something to say about it all, dispite the energy robber barons scrambling to clean up the image of old king coal, and convince us, that like their current cow, oil, the blatant lie, that modern life, could not go on without it.

=^^=
.../\...